New York Times Leaf Article

[samosa4u]

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/598.../?redirected=1

75 years later, new findings reshape the Jackie Robinson rookie card discussion
By Michael Salfino
Dec 10, 2024

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

Collecting chaos.

That’s the issue now with the 1948 Leaf baseball cards, which had been the exclusive rookie cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige. And they were given co-rookie card status with the 1948 Bowman cards of Stan Musial, Warren Spahn and Ralph Kiner, among others.

It had been widely accepted but never officially proven that the 1948 Leaf cards were mostly issued in 1949. One grading company, SGC, labels the Leaf cards “1948-49,” even on its old labels/grading system that ended in 2018. But the biggest grader, Professional Sports Authenticator (PSA), labels them “1948,” period. The rationale has been that some cards, including the Robinson and the Musial, carry a 1948 copyright.

But Brian Kappel, author of the book “re: Leaf: The story of a collector, a candy company, a stack of baseball cards and a search for answers,” has done ample research — even looking at court documents from the period in question — and concluded that no Leaf 1948 cards were shipped until 1949. That’s at most a couple of months before the 1949 Bowman cards shipped.


Jackie Robinson’s first Leaf baseball card. (Photo: Sotheby’s)

That could mean that the 1949 Bowman Robinson and Paige deserve rookie status previously only awarded to the Leaf issues. And even more consequentially, the 1948 Bowman Musial would thus be the only Musial rookie card, no longer sharing that designation with the 1948 (really 1949) Leaf issue. That Leaf card, if reclassified, would be a second-year card no different than the 1949 Bowman Musial.

According to Kappel, the smoking gun is the 1949 court filing forwarded to him by a collector in researching his book. The filing addressed Bowman contention that Leaf violated its exclusive player contracts.

In the response, Kappel says, “Leaf states in plain English, when the first cards left the factory (March 14, 1949), as well as acknowledging that when the paperwork was processed (March 30), the cards had been in stores for a few weeks.” The parties agreed that Bowman, as of March 1949, had not yet issued its comparable baseball card product for that year.

Kappel forwarded to The Athletic a Leaf advertising flyer announcing its baseball cards with a 1949 copyright on it.

Typically, all first cards of professional players issued in the same year are considered the player’s rookie cards, regardless of which company issued the card first that year.

Jason A. Schwartz, Co-Chair, Society for American Baseball Research (SABR) Baseball Cards Research Committee said, “Without a doubt, I classify the Leaf set as ‘1949 Leaf’ based on definitive evidence that no cards were distributed prior to March 1949.” He added, “I make no distinction between Leaf and 1949 Bowman as far as rookie cards are concerned. The situation is analogous to comparing the 1983 Topps, Fleer, and Donruss cards of Tony Gwynn.”

This is tremendously important when it comes to card value, as rookie cards are most prized by collectors and generally generate the largest investment returns.

For example, the Leaf Musial that today is considered a 1948 issue/rookie card sells for $2,400 decently centered in PSA 3 (very good) condition. The 1949 Bowman, because it’s considered a second-year card, sells in the same condition for just a fraction of that in the same condition — about $500. The number of graded Leaf and 1949 Bowman Musials are about equal.

The 1948 Bowman Musial, considered less desirable aesthetically for their smaller size and black-and-white image, sold recently for just $725 in the same “very good” condition. But if the Bowman card is now the only true Musial rookie, given it was issued about a year earlier, it stands to reason the price of that card would increase. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Musials as the Leaf Musials, according to GemRate, which tracks graded card populations.

Rookie card status can impact value more than population numbers. Consider that the 1948 Bowman Yogi Berra, his unquestioned rookie card, sells for more than twice the amount of the 1949 Bowman, in the same condition. That’s despite there being about twice as many graded 1948 Bowman Berra cards as 1949 Bowman Berras.

“If a player has a card in 1948 Bowman, then there is no basis for regarding the Leaf card as a rookie,” Schwartz said.

The biggest card in both the Leaf and 1949 Bowman sets is Robinson’s, which, according to Schwartz, should share rookie-card designation. An SGC 3 of the 1949 Bowman card sold recently for $4,151.51. But an SCG 3 of the Leaf Robinson recently sold for $11,400. The populations of both the 1949 Bowman and Leaf Robinsons are nearly identical, according to GemRate.


Jackie Robinson’s 1949 Bowman baseball card. (Photo: eBay)

“I am not sure I would completely reclassify the ‘48 Leaf (Robinson),” said Jason Eggert, a top collector of Robinson cards and memorabilia. “To many, it will always be his rookie card. Kind of like modern cards, I have no problem having several different early cards be considered rookie cards.”

The Paige card is a short print in Leaf but that, in addition to its rookie status, gives that card a value of about $40,000 in SGC 3. The Bowman 1949, considered a second-year card, goes for about 1/10th that amount. GemRate says there are about six times as many graded 1949 Paige Bowmans than Leafs, so the “rookie” designation of the Paige Leaf card is still a considerable part of its value.

“We will always consider new information and facts to make sure we’re recognizing cards appropriately, whether that’s the year manufactured or variations,” PSA president Ryan Hoge said. PSA added that it has “nothing new to announce with this particular set right now regarding our labels.”

Brian Dwyer, president of Robert Edward Auctions, says collectors will impact the future value of the cards.

“How prices for these Leaf and Bowman cards fluctuate in the months and years ahead will be determined by the collectors themselves, but we wouldn’t be surprised to see a noticeable uptick in the interest of these cards,” Dwyer said. “While some may perceive them differently now, there are passionate fans and collectors of these sets (who) will continue to view both sets as 1948 issues for rookie card collecting purposes.”

[packs]

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

[e107collector]

When I first saw the post, I actually thought the story was in reference to this video posted 2 days ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0x3wC9QoSc

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

The Portrait IS his rook.....now you tightwads out there, start paying up!

[jason.1969]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Correct. Anything from 1948 or 1949 is moot as far as rookie card classification is concerned. That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

The most knowledgeable collectors in the Hobby have been on board the 1949 train for a while and have decided what Jackie’s rookie card(s) is/are based on the criteria they deem relevant.

However, the majority of collectors put their trust in PSA or other Hobby authorities to figure such things out for them, and this is where PSA has been and remains:

[samosa4u]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

That said, the 1949 issue date for the "1948 Leaf" baseball cards is hardly news in our circles.

Right, because Ted Zanidakis (rest in peace) used to complain about it all the time on here. However, this is different because New York Times is writing about it!

I personally think that the 49' Bowman baseball cards are a great buy right now. The gap between both sets (Bowman and Leaf) will start to close over the years.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

[packs]

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

He's also in 1947 Homogenized BB, but I don't think most people would go there either.

[bk400]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

Agree. If you consider Jackie's true rookie to be the 47BB, then logically the Montiel must be Musial's rookie card (or at least supersedes the 48B for rookie card status).

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bk400

Agree. If you consider Jackie's true rookie to be the 47BB, then logically the Montiel must be Musial's rookie card (or at least supersedes the 48B for rookie card status).

Logically we could distinguish a US baseball issue from a Cuban multisport issue, no?

[packs]

Usually I would agree but the Montiel is a tough one. Musial appears in his Cardinals uniform and his career up to date with the Cardinals is featured in his bio on the back. The issue is also referred to as 1946-47 which would I think challenge any other issue.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

Usually I would agree but the Montiel is a tough one. Musial appears in his Cardinals uniform and his career up to date with the Cardinals is featured in his bio on the back. The issue is also referred to as 1946-47 which would I think challenge any other issue.

When did he wear #19?

[BioCRN]

There are no winners in a regional issue vs national issue RC debate.

Then there's "Do exhibits count?" and "Do card game cards count?"...etc

It ends with more RC's than people thought possible once everyone has stated their side.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

When did he wear #19?

No idea. DiMaggio is wearing number 18 on the Hank Erickson National Chicle.

This write up on Musial's 1941 debut features the original photo used for the Montiel card. Looks like a Cardinals uniform to me:

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...-league-debut/

From the photo credit on the web page: Stan Musial — pictured wearing a number 19 jersey during spring training 1942 in St. Petersburg, Florida — hit .426 in 12 games as a rookie call-up in September 1941. (National Baseball Hall of Fame Library)

So the Montiel features a photo of Musial from spring training 1942. I would say that's another plus for that card.

[Kutcher55]

What a trivial debate. On a more interesting subject (at least to me), can anyone tell me just how “short” the SPs are for 1948-9 Leaf? They seem to get a massive premium suggesting they are much more than twice as rare as their non SP counterparts. Relative pop counts suggest the same. Is there an old net54 thread someone can direct me to that helps answer this question? Why are these SPs so dang short?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

No idea. DiMaggio is wearing number 18 on the Hank Erickson National Chicle.

This write up on Musial's 1941 debut features the original photo used for the Montiel card. Looks like a Cardinals uniform to me:

https://sabr.org/gamesproj/game/sept...-league-debut/

From the photo credit on the web page: Stan Musial — pictured wearing a number 19 jersey during spring training 1942 in St. Petersburg, Florida — hit .426 in 12 games as a rookie call-up in September 1941. (National Baseball Hall of Fame Library)

So the Montiel features a photo of Musial from spring training 1942. I would say that's another plus for that card.

Good find.

[BigfootIsReal]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

There are no winners in a regional issue vs national issue RC debate.

Then there's "Do exhibits count?" and "Do card game cards count?"...etc

It ends with more RC's than people thought possible once everyone has stated their side.

The recent Ruth Morehouse (regional issue) was auctioned as a "rookie". What's up with that then?

[bk400]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

The recent Ruth Morehouse (regional issue) was auctioned as a "rookie". What's up with that then?

Yes, indeed. The Hank Aaron Clowns card that recently sold at auction is perhaps another example.

I wouldn't be surprised if, over time, regional and minor league cards of major stars will become more coveted by collectors -- especially if they were issued earlier and are rarer than the national issue.

(I could also see this playing out in the modern arena. A Mookie Betts 2012 card when he played for the Lowell Spinners feels much more interesting to collect than one of his myriad modern rookie cards and rookie card parallels. Especially if Mookie gets to, say, 100 WAR).

[rats60]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Other than Musial, whose 48B would now be his only RC, and Paige, whose 49B would now take on RC status, what RC designations would this affect? I concur it should not affect Jackie because the BB is his true RC. There are already all sorts of 49B that are RCs of players who are not in Leaf -- Hodges, Ashburn, Wynn, Roberts, Lemon, Snider, Kell, Campanella.

1949 Leaf Spahn and Kiner are not rookie cards. PSA designates players with both 49 Leaf and Bowman as having two rookie cards, so no change there.

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by rats60

1949 Leaf Spahn and Kiner are not rookie cards.

Many people will point to 1948 Bowman for both of them...some will point to 1947 Tip-Top Bread for both of them...

Grover C Alexander...his RC depends on whether you count supplements, leathers, silks, transfers/stamps, or table game cards that came before his 1914 Cracker Jack card many say is his RC.

[rats60]

Originally Posted by BigfootIsReal

The recent Ruth Morehouse (regional issue) was auctioned as a "rookie". What's up with that then?

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money. It doesn't make them rookie cards.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

What a trivial debate. On a more interesting subject (at least to me), can anyone tell me just how “short” the SPs are for 1948-9 Leaf? They seem to get a massive premium suggesting they are much more than twice as rare as their non SP counterparts. Relative pop counts suggest the same. Is there an old net54 thread someone can direct me to that helps answer this question? Why are these SPs so dang short?

I don't know that there is a quantifiable number to encapsulate how SHORT the SHORT actually is, that said, in talking with a ton of people while writing the book, they were not really even known about until the 1970's. When speaking with James Beckett on his podcast, he recanted that he, and other dealers started finding them in the 70's centralized in the Great Lakes states. This would make sense as the lawsuit with Bowman hit in March of 1949, but the second suit hit in May, which essentially shut down the east coast distribution of the cards. I think amidst litigation, and wanting to get rid of any inventory that had been produced (the short prints), LEAF pumped out the cards to distributors close to Chicago in an effort to shut down the baseball card endeavor and not lose any more money on it.

[steve B]

Originally Posted by yanks87

I don't know that there is a quantifiable number to encapsulate how SHORT the SHORT actually is, that said, in talking with a ton of people while writing the book, they were not really even known about until the 1970's. When speaking with James Beckett on his podcast, he recanted that he, and other dealers started finding them in the 70's centralized in the Great Lakes states. This would make sense as the lawsuit with Bowman hit in March of 1949, but the second suit hit in May, which essentially shut down the east coast distribution of the cards. I think amidst litigation, and wanting to get rid of any inventory that had been produced (the short prints), LEAF pumped out the cards to distributors close to Chicago in an effort to shut down the baseball card endeavor and not lose any more money on it.

Some were probably issued on the east coast.

The shop I hung out at in the late 70's early 80's had a box of cards in so they could make an offer. I got to look through it but had to be careful since it wasn't theirs yet.
ABout halfway through I mentioned that it was really cool to see a bunch of "high number" leafs (The way they got referred to which was incorrect but less awkward than other ways)
Huge thing, lots of consternation, would raising the offer make the seller change their mind? That happened a lot, especially if they thought the early offers were lowball offers.
Call made, situation explained, new offer made and accepted.

I hoped to get one for spotting them, but no deal. No big deal as I got deals from them on other stuff all the time.

The SPs are very tough cards. I still don't even have a common.
And I've pretty much thought of them as a separate set.

[jchcollins]

Oh please, can something lose a designation and become worth less just because the NYT says so? (Then I might have more than a snowball's chance in hell of ever owning one...)

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by steve B

Some were probably issued on the east coast.

The shop I hung out at in the late 70's early 80's had a box of cards in so they could make an offer. I got to look through it but had to be careful since it wasn't theirs yet.
ABout halfway through I mentioned that it was really cool to see a bunch of "high number" leafs (The way they got referred to which was incorrect but less awkward than other ways)
Huge thing, lots of consternation, would raising the offer make the seller change their mind? That happened a lot, especially if they thought the early offers were lowball offers.
Call made, situation explained, new offer made and accepted.

I hoped to get one for spotting them, but no deal. No big deal as I got deals from them on other stuff all the time.

The SPs are very tough cards. I still don't even have a common.
And I've pretty much thought of them as a separate set.

You're right Steve, I should have clarified, the May injunction was aimed at Pennsylvania based distributors, that said with the first truck that left Chicago with the cards was heading to Boston, (which validates the Antique Roadshow video), so there is a good chance that some of the Short Prints would have gone that way as well.

[Kutcher55]

Originally Posted by yanks87

You're right Steve, I should have clarified, the May injunction was aimed at Pennsylvania based distributors, that said with the first truck that left Chicago with the cards was heading to Boston, (which validates the Antique Roadshow video), so there is a good chance that some of the Short Prints would have gone that way as well.

Thanks. They do seem legit tough. As an example, if you’re looking for a dom dimaggio, as I am, it’s interesting to note that there are 43 Joe D’s presently up for sale on eBay and only 2 Dom D’s. Tough to find specifics on the net about just how rare they are relatively speaking. I have purchased the article from old BB cards written by a much beloved recently passed net54 member and am curious if that article sheds further insight. Curious not only just how scarce they are but if some are more scarce than others.

I know the word is abused in hobby circles but I find the set imagery extremely iconic. Recently reacquired a Ted Williams and it’s quite mesmerizing.

[yanks87]

Originally Posted by Kutcher55

Thanks. They do seem legit tough. As an example, if you’re looking for a dom dimaggio, as I am, it’s interesting to note that there are 43 Joe D’s presently up for sale on eBay and only 2 Dom D’s. Tough to find specifics on the net about just how rare they are relatively speaking. I have purchased the article from old BB cards written by a much beloved recently passed net54 member and am curious if that article sheds further insight. Curious not only just how scarce they are but if some are more scarce than others.

I know the word is abused in hobby circles but I find the set imagery extremely iconic. Recently reacquired a Ted Williams and it’s quite mesmerizing.

The two baseball series were produced the same way, 4X49 cards per sheet. So from a production standpoint, all short prints were produced at the same number. What survived the years, that is another story. The big names always hang around, the lesser knowns sometimes don't as few care about the commons.

I go one step further in my book re: LEAF (available on Amazon) and point out that there was a late printing of the main run of the cards. In that print run there are plate changes made that create an alternate version to the main run of the cards, true variations. So if you were wanting to run down the rabbit hole, there are at least 3 runs of the cards, Early Print, Late Print and Short Print. This has to do with the printing plates, and not the color variation which was a result of the inks that were used. It also doesn't include the printing errors, which there many!

[bcbgcbrcb]

Good thing I’m starting my own YouTube channel right after the first of the year to discuss this vintage rookie card debate among other topics including Negro League Baseball material.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by rats60

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money. It doesn't make them rookie cards.

Truth.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I think even Musial depends on whether you consider his Montiel card his true rookie or not. It predates all 1948 issues too.

Certainly it predates the others, but doesn't something have to be a card to be a rookie card? The Montiels are just paperstock cutouts that otherwise look like baseball cards.

[Pat R]

So what baseball card did Ken Keltner show to the bartender?

December 24 Wisconsin newspaper
1948 Ken Keltner Baseball card The_Post_Crescent_1948_12_24_21.jpg

[Yoda]

Originally Posted by BioCRN

Many people will point to 1948 Bowman for both of them...some will point to 1947 Tip-Top Bread for both of them...

Grover C Alexander...his RC depends on whether you count supplements, leathers, silks, transfers/stamps, or table game cards that came before his 1914 Cracker Jack card many say is his RC.

I was of the notion for a long time that Alexander's rookie card, being issued in 1914, but now have to go with the '14 CJ CJ, as that seems to be the common belief. Shame there aren't more cards of 'Ole Pete', given his significance to the game.

[Yoda]

Sorry, meant to reference the T222 Fatima card.

[samosa4u]

I don't like the 47' Bond Bread set because they are all Jackies! Are they all rookie cards? Furthermore, imagine if Mantle had thirteen different cards in the 52' Topps set!! Would they be sought-after and worth so much ?? Probably not, because having that many cards would just water down the values.

We also have to look at brand loyality here. People love Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. and it's no different with sports cards. People want Leaf, Bowman, Topps, O-Pee-Chee, Upper Deck, etc. How many fans are there of Bond Bread ?? What else did they make other than that Jackie set ??

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

Certainly it predates the others, but doesn't something have to be a card to be a rookie card? The Montiels are just paperstock cutouts that otherwise look like baseball cards.

I’ve never heard of anyone refer to the Montiel Desportes set as being hand cut. They have received number grades for as long as I’ve been familiar with them.

[packs]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I don't like the 47' Bond Bread set because they are all Jackies! Are they all rookie cards? Furthermore, imagine if Mantle had thirteen different cards in the 52' Topps set!! Would they be sought-after and worth so much ?? Probably not, because having that many cards would just water down the values.

We also have to look at brand loyality here. People love Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. and it's no different with sports cards. People want Leaf, Bowman, Topps, O-Pee-Chee, Upper Deck, etc. How many fans are there of Bond Bread ?? What else did they make other than that Jackie set ??

They made an entire set of cards other than Jackie.

The Jackie Portrait card was produced specifically to promote Jackie because of his historic achievement, as was the rest of the set that followed. Why would any Jackie fan prefer another card to the portrait? The portrait is the first appearance of any black player in a major league uniform.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by packs

I’ve never heard of anyone refer to the Montiel Desportes set as being hand cut. They have received number grades for as long as I’ve been familiar with them.

I don't know if they were cut by hand or not. My point was merely that they aren't cards.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Yoda

Sorry, meant to reference the T222 Fatima card.

Of course the M101-2 is even earlier, but I prefer the Fatima.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I don't like the 47' Bond Bread set because they are all Jackies! Are they all rookie cards? Furthermore, imagine if Mantle had thirteen different cards in the 52' Topps set!! Would they be sought-after and worth so much ?? Probably not, because having that many cards would just water down the values.

We also have to look at brand loyality here. People love Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. and it's no different with sports cards. People want Leaf, Bowman, Topps, O-Pee-Chee, Upper Deck, etc. How many fans are there of Bond Bread ?? What else did they make other than that Jackie set ??

But all that said, the Portrait commands very strong prices.

[darwinbulldog]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

I don't like the 47' Bond Bread set because they are all Jackies! Are they all rookie cards? Furthermore, imagine if Mantle had thirteen different cards in the 52' Topps set!! Would they be sought-after and worth so much ?? Probably not, because having that many cards would just water down the values.

We also have to look at brand loyality here. People love Nike, Adidas, Reebok, etc. and it's no different with sports cards. People want Leaf, Bowman, Topps, O-Pee-Chee, Upper Deck, etc. How many fans are there of Bond Bread ?? What else did they make other than that Jackie set ??

Since we know some of the photos were taken in 1948 or 1949, I think we can rule out those Jackie Bond Bread cards from rookie card contention. Whether any of the ones issued in 1947, or merely the earliest one, should be considered a rookie card is a separate issue, but I'm inclined to say anything that came out before the end of the 1947 season deserves the label.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I don't know if they were cut by hand or not. My point was merely that they aren't cards.

Then what are they? Cards can be made of a material other than standard Topps cardboard and be a card.

[packs]

Originally Posted by darwinbulldog

I don't know if they were cut by hand or not. My point was merely that they aren't cards.

Then what are they? Cards can be made of a material other than standard Topps cardboard and be a card.

[Balticfox]

Originally Posted by samosa4u

Rookie cards are determined by the year of issue. So what happens when it’s incontrovertibly proven that a set from 1948 was actually issued in 1949?

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.

Originally Posted by rats60

People who own or are selling cards call them rookie cards to try to get more money.

Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

[Tabe]

Originally Posted by packs

Jackie's true rookie and definitively released in 1947. Already on its way, but this card should be considered one of the most significant cards in baseball card history:

What issue is this?

[brunswickreeves]

While I like rookie cards because they depict the youngest version of the player when they have so much potential ahead of them, I love a player’s last issue card because it memorializes their career in achievements and stats.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Tabe

What issue is this?

That is the 1947 Bond Bread Portrait. It was the first depiction of Jackie in a major league uniform. The rest of the Jackie set was released after the portrait, which was used as a promotional item.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Balticfox

So what? The "1948" Leaf cards of Jackie Robinson and Satchel Paige are still the same cards that they ever were. They're no less or more attractive than they were yesterday. This whole rookie card thing arose from dealers hyping up their oldest cards to sucker dilettantes and greenhorns into paying higher prices. "Oh, but it's his rookie card so it's worth five times as much as his card from the following year!" Yeah, well you can keep it then. Or sell it to some pigeon.



Yes, precisely! 'Nuff said.

Which dealers were those, and when?

[BioCRN]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Of course the M101-2 is even earlier, but I prefer the Fatima.

Poking around, it seems Grover Alexander's RC status was discussed on Net54 in a past poll 12 years ago...with an expected all-over-the-place landing point.

https://www.net54baseball.com/poll.p...lts&pollid=123

Thread: https://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=151396